Here is the secret-not-so-secret online Nunnian shrine made by the loving 05 UMich TASPers. Enter our homology. We are Triumphant in Turquoise--and all other colors. WORRRRD.

Wednesday, November 23, 2005

I like chicken, I like chicken, I like chicken, hey hey hey hey!

Hello, most pulchritudinous comrades!

I've been at home on break since Saturday, and my mom made me fried chicken in celebration. All you need to know about the recipe is that it involves a pound of lard. That about sums it up. Mm, mm, good.

Anyway, I was watching "Gilmore Girls" with my fellow dormmates last week, and one of the characters, Rory, came into an interesting situation. For those of you who don't watch the show, Rory is one of the main characters, and she dropped out of Yale recently because she was discouraged by a bad internship with her boyfriend's newspaper-mogul father. Anyway, she's gotten back on her feet, and she's after a job interview.
Here's the interesting part: her tactics in acquiring the job. She comes to the newspaper office everyday and sits there in the front lobby. She'll read the paper or help people with coffee or offer advice, all the while giving the newspaper head some penetrating looks. He won't give her a job, and she won't take no for an answer. She even puts her resume on his desk. So, one of the girls I'm watching with says, "She's so pushy! That's so obnoxious."
I seriously flipped out. It came out of nowhere, but all of a sudden I was berating her about how if Rory were a man, we'd be talking about how assertive he was, and how amazing it was that he wouldn't take "no" for an answer. Well, anyway, it blew up into a fullscale argument on how we perceive the same actions when we put attribute them to women vs. men. Anyone want to weigh in on this? Are we really as progressive on gender issues as we think?

Also, I'm going to see "Rent" tonight w/ some of my theater-posse friends. How I ended up with so many drama-types, having a passionate hate for acting, myself, I'll never know.

Last, I'm reading The Brothers Karamazov. It's seriously lifechanging. I just read "The Grand Inquisitor" chapter. I read it for Philosophy class, and I was like, WHOA, I have to read the rest of the book. Now that I've come to it again, I've begun to realize that Dostoevsky is not only a genius, but some kind of unimaginable genius. The way he approaches the subject of God just blows me away. You should all read it, immediately. I'm not kidding.

Uh-oh! My mother needs assistance with a pie crust. Duty calls.

Until we meet again!

4 Comments:

Blogger Sam said...

My dad is a total Brothers Karamzov junkie. I read it when I was 13, and most of it passed right over my head. Needless to say, I didn't enjoy it much . . . I do still remember the Grand Inquisitor scene, though - amazing stuff there, although I doubt I appreciated its full power. One of those books I'm going to have to reread someday . . .

6:04 PM, November 24, 2005

 
Blogger Jason Chua said...

OK, I never got this - is that >=) emoticon meant to be a happy, open smile, or are its brows drawn together in a sort of condescending snicker?

Do clarify.

5:03 PM, November 25, 2005

 
Blogger Meredith said...

It's from Adam. Therefore, it's meant to be...EVIL!

5:21 PM, November 25, 2005

 
Blogger Meredith said...

Also, Adam:
I see what you're saying, but it feels wrong somehow. Never fear, I will mull over that and come up with an articulate response.
Mostly, having equality doesn't mean sacrificing any sort of individuality, but changes the way you quantiify it. I don't think it's necessarily good or bad to view people differently for the same actions. I DO think it's not good to judge people differently according to groupings we fit them into, whether it's age, race, gender, or all the other noun-isms that we discussed in TASP. If we're going to judge people on a non-equal scale, I think that it is good to have it on an individual basis, and not one of sweeping generalization/labeling given to perceived groups.

11:30 PM, November 25, 2005

 

Post a Comment

<< Home